What the hell is Japanse Jujitsu in the UK/US?

OK so I'm starting to get more and more confused.

We're always told that JJJ was developed by the samurai, bla bla bla, as a form of self defence. Now, these guys were the elite fighters of the time right, so it makes sense that their shite really worked- i.e., if someone swung a sword at one of them, they would know how to disarm the guy.

Similarly unarmed, I assume that their mix of aikido, judo and striking meant they were still pretty prolific at diffusing attacks. I dont mean UFC tournament, I mean more self defensive and efficient. (Im not saying MMA is not either of those things, Im just saying it is perhaps designed with certain things in mind, rather than kill of be killed).

So now comes my quandary- there are a lot of people, especially on these forums, who love MMA and BJJ and seem to doubt the ability of traditional forms. First question; is this because JJJ has been so corrupted and warped by club politics, Chinese whispers and idiot fakers that it has lost any element of actual jujitsu?

That leads on to my next question: If that IS the case, and even if we're being taught a warped version of stuff, how can we measure whats different? I mean certain wrist locks for example do work right? Pain compliance is there, etc. Similarly with their knife defence, I don't understand why these techniques are bing taught anywhere if they don't work at all? Or is it because they DO work, but like the samurai your expected to have mastered them for 10 years before you put them into practice? Or is it just more BS originating from... where exactly? Was there some guy who just sat in a room on LSD and was like 'I could totally X-block a knife and then catch it' etc?

My questions stem from the fact that I really enjoy the belt system as it helps me set goals and recognise people who (should) be better than me, I enjoy wearing pyjamas and doing a bit of the judo style sport side as well, and I dont want to compete- so MMA isnt necessarily my martial art of choice.

Almost all "Traditional" Jiu Jitsu in the UK is a reverse engineered Judo/Karate/Aikido mix and not some kind of direct-from-the-samurai transmission. It's general lack of efficiency is a combination of mis-applied technique (things that maybe worked pretty well applied to spears when full armoured applied to pocket knife attacks, **** like that), slavishly copying systems that were not designed with fighting efficiency in mind (Shotokan, Aikido) and, most importantly the abandonment or serious watering down of live training methods and sparring.

I think there's a huge difference between the perception of samurai training unarmed skills, and the reality. I do a reverse-engineered knock off (like PSB was referring to) rather than a koryu, but looking at the training methods in the koryu styles you see it's almost all dead training. Seems more like an addition to having and training with weapons as the focus,rather than trying to be an unarmed bad ass.

What style/organisation etc of jujitsu do you belong to? How do you think it stacks up to your BJJ training?

looking at the training methods in the koryu styles you see it's almost all dead training. Seems more like an addition to having and training with weapons as the focus,rather than trying to be an unarmed bad ass.

I think it's a incorrect to mistake the training methods of the koryu now, which are focused on historical preservation, with how they were practised when people were fighting for real. It's clear in the histories of people like Yukio Tani that they did extensive sparring and training on things that weren't in the notional "syllabus" of their style.

What style/organisation etc of jujitsu do you belong to? How do you think it stacks up to your BJJ training?

I go to a club called London Jujitsu, I really enjoy the atmosphere and the teacher is very very good in my opinion. Our techniques are somewhere between live and dead (if there's such a thing) I think you guys call it drilling on here? Basically the move is started and then resistance is added, ie its not dead weight, theres resistance to throws and counters etc- very little standing sparring (so sometimes Ill go to throw someone in practice and the uke will just not be thrown). We do judo style sparring though, and we do groundwork which is obviously a mix of live and drilling. I like the stand up stuff for balance, footwork and learning the concepts of a move though.

BJJ always seems to be the dominant force regarding what I know would actually work under duress; I have little (perhaps arrogantly) doubt that I could hold my own against average untrained and unarmed people using it, even if it was a case of a rather untechnical crash tackle to the floor to get them there.

Its not that I have a problem with the school or what Im learning, it just seems a shame if none of the traditional stuff it would work in a self defence situation, when benchmarked with MMA for example. Also legally I quite like the idea of using standing joint locks and restraints where possible and keeping striking to a minimal, which I'm not sure is something MMA for example suggests would work or is the primary way to respond?

I go to a club called London Jujitsu, I really enjoy the atmosphere and the teacher is very very good in my opinion. Our techniques are somewhere between live and dead (if there's such a thing) I think you guys call it drilling on here? Basically the move is started and then resistance is added, ie its not dead weight, theres resistance to throws and counters etc- very little standing sparring (so sometimes Ill go to throw someone in practice and the uke will just not be thrown).

This sounds completely dead. If you rarely SPAR to resistance your drills are also dead.

We do judo style sparring though, and we do groundwork which is obviously a mix of live and drilling.

Explain this because it makes little sense. Do you actually spar or is it some type of drill?

Also legally I quite like the idea of using standing joint locks and restraints where possible and keeping striking to a minimal, which I'm not sure is something MMA for example suggests would work or is the primary way to respond?

Being able to wrestle so you can control someone on the feet is a good idea, but standing joint locks, as controls, are both difficult to land and contingent on your willingness to break the joint in question. The law doesn't make any helpful distinction between breaking someone's nose and ripping their shoulder out. If you want to control someone without hurting them it's almost always a good idea to take them off their feet.

I think it's a incorrect to mistake the training methods of the koryu now, which are focused on historical preservation, with how they were practised when people were fighting for real. It's clear in the histories of people like Yukio Tani that they did extensive sparring and training on things that weren't in the notional "syllabus" of their style.

You're probably right, I know very little about the subject. I just assumed the historical preservation would extend to how it's trained, as well as the techniques themself.